As per case facts, a public sector undertaking availed excise duty exemption on Naphtha for fertilizer and ammonia production using CT-2 certificates. The revenue alleged partial diversion for other chemicals ... and electricity, initiating proceedings for unpaid duty, interest, and penalties under the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression. The CESTAT and High Court partially upheld the revenue's demands. The question arose whether the exemption based on 'intended use' was applicable despite partial indirect use, and if the extended limitation period could be invoked. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that 'for use' means 'intended for use', affirming the appellant's entitlement to exemption as Naphtha's primary intent was for fertilizer. Finding the situation revenue-neutral (as duty would be reimbursed by subsidies), the Court concluded there was no intent to evade duty. Consequently, the duty demand, interest, and penalties were set aside, disallowing the extended period of limitation.